My job often involves standing in one place for hours at a time, feeding documents through a scanner. I was bored silly the first year on the job, until I realized I could bring an MP3 player to work. So I did.

At first, I used the library's Overdrive Audiobook downloads, but the DRM only allows 2 weeks to listen to them. Then I tried Librivox, but those are limited to works in the public domain in the USA, and I didn't just want the classics.

I decided to borrow library audiobooks on CD, and rip them to my computer, to put on my MP3 device. My reasoning goes like this: As a city library card holder, I have a license to listen to it on the CD-playing device of my choosing, during the time it is checked out. I will not distribute ("share") these rips to anyone else. I will listen to it once all the way through, and delete it.

Though this probably breaks the actual text of the DMCA, I figure I'm staying within the spirit of the license, especially if I renew the audiobook if I haven't finished it by that time.

I did this same over the summer when I was doing mindless labor. I don't think there's anything wrong with it if you delete the files before you return the book. I don't know about the legality, but I doubt anyone is actually even worried about trying to enforce it. If your library is like mine, their is a better selection of books on tape than books on CD, so it might be worth it to buy a cheap tape player.

But do you think libraries pay the same amount as individuals do when buying media? Foolish mortal! If a city opened a library without paying the higher rate, they'd get their butts handed to them in court. Books are, after all, where the majority of copyright law have been focused, ironed out, and refined to a lawyer's art.

I pay into the city coffers, usually as sales tax, and in addition to all the other city services, I get to rent a limited number of media items for a limited period of time, an infinite number of times. I trust the city's lawyers to have made it legit.

For interesting licensing, you should check into church hymn licensing. Our choirmaster has to log the hymns the choir sings, and inform the bulk licensing group CCLI once a year. That way, CCLI can pay the license holders, and also set the rate we pay to legally perform each Sunday.

Heck, when I get a decent computer setup, I'm going to rip the parts of the soundtracks that appear in the credits on my DVDs. Legally, it's equivalent to taking a portable DVD player with me, but never looking at the screen.

I think if you're paying dues to the library, and want to rip things from the library for your future enjoyment, at no penalty to the library (as in copying digital media or photocopying books or such), I don't think you've done anything wrong. If anything, you've made it easier for more people to enjoy the books you don't have checked out, and sold the works via your enthusiasm for it...

How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.

Izawwlgood wrote:I think if you're paying dues to the library, and want to rip things from the library for your future enjoyment, at no penalty to the library (as in copying digital media or photocopying books or such), I don't think you've done anything wrong. If anything, you've made it easier for more people to enjoy the books you don't have checked out, and sold the works via your enthusiasm for it...

The problem with the illegitimacy of experiencing a creative work without a valid license is that it breaks an agreement between freemen.

To be civilized is to abide by terms of agreements legitimately reached. If said agreements become onerous to one party, it is civilized to seek either a rebalancing of terms or a dissolution of contract.

Consider the Kindle. Recently, Amazon pulled copies of 1984 off Kindles using the built-in wireless connectivity. They did not do this for profit; rather, they did it because they had been selling an e-book they obtained from a publisher whose license they later discovered was invalid. If a brick-and-mortar bookstore had sold a case of stolen books unbeknownst to them, they would have a difficult time tracking down all the copies sold, and reclaiming them. The sudden removal of the e-books startled a lot of people, who did not understand the terms of their own agreement with Amazon, or the nature of the licenses they had bought. However, it was the right thing to do, and for the first time, it could be done.

And yet I would not object to renting an entire series, such as the Harry Potter audiobooks, ripping them piecemeal, and listening once all the way through. My brain works oddly.

BlueNight wrote:And yet I would not object to renting an entire series, such as the Harry Potter audiobooks, ripping them piecemeal, and listening once all the way through. My brain works oddly.

It has nothing to do with the oddness of your brain, and everything to do with the oddness of contract agreements pertaining to creative commons laws.

Few examples;1) Walking into a Borders and stealing a book/audio book. I say that's Theft.2) Walking into a Borders and photocopying a book/making a copy of an audiobook. I say that's not Theft, but it's still iffy.3) Paying dues to a library, and stealing a book/audio book. I say that's Theft.4) Paying dues to a library, and photocopying a book/copying an audiobook. I say that's hardly theft, and I wouldn't feel bad about doing it.

In examples 1-2, there's no way for the author to derive any profit, and the institution suffers, becoming less likely to carry the authors product. In example 3-4, the author still derives profit, but the library suffers in example 3. Thus, I feel what you're doing is quite reasonable, even more so if you're deleting the works once you're finished, and especially so if you're not reselling them for profit.

How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.

Theft isn't copying data. Theft is taking something from somebody. If you would have bought something but find it free (unless the price is absurd), I'd say replacing a purchase with a copy is theft. But a major function of technology is to make things available. Restrictive copyright or farflung arguments for intellectual property are pretty unnatural when the vast majority of the human race is capable of understanding for themselves when you're crossing lines.

Hey, for that matter theft is using a position of authority and power to enrich yourselves while screwing over the creative types who actually make the stuff (*cough, cough*, entertainment industry). So rather than getting worked up about who's stealing and who isn't, experience a wide variety of media any way you can without shoplifting, support whoever deserves it and feel good about it at the end of the day.

Technically, copying data CAN be theft. It's a major part of the case law for trade secrets and espionage. But in terms of copyright, Clumpy, you're right, copying data isn't theft. It could be copyright infringement though.

And what the OP described would be infringement, not just under the DMCA but under §106 of the '76 Copyright Act. But does it matter? Not really.

"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

Technically, copying data CAN be theft. It's a major part of the case law for trade secrets and espionage. But in terms of copyright, Clumpy, you're right, copying data isn't theft. It could be copyright infringement though.

And what the OP described would be infringement, not just under the DMCA but under §106 of the '76 Copyright Act. But does it matter? Not really.

Yeah, that's my point. The real, "this-is-why-it's-illegal" form of theft, and the type of "theft" created under the guise of intellectual property to leverage the power of corporations and trade groups.

Legal code being in legalise one of the language I will never learn; I can't speak to the legality of this.

However, ethically speaking this seems perfectlly on the clean side of things; you are effective renting the book for ever without taking the ability to borrow it away from everyone else. If your tax money is still supporting library/paying library fee(not sure of system) then noone is losing money they would have had otherwise.

Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Clumpy wrote:The real, "this-is-why-it's-illegal" form of theft, and the type of "theft" created under the guise of intellectual property to leverage the power of corporations and trade groups.

I have no idea what you are trying to convey here. Could you explain in more detail, please?

I'm referring to the fact that laws were created for a reason, because of the damage they create. If you can't itemize why exactly copying information causes real damage, and there isn't an overridingly sound reason to make something like that illegal, it seems not only to be fine but actually in the public interest to protect. Hence fair use, etc.

Clumpy wrote:I'm referring to the fact that laws were created for a reason, because of the damage they create. If you can't itemize why exactly copying information causes real damage, and there isn't an overridingly sound reason to make something like that illegal, it seems not only to be fine but actually in the public interest to protect. Hence fair use, etc.

Copyright infringement is illegal because society has decided to provide a commercial incentive for creative works and copyright infringement impairs that commercial incentive from occurring. The fair-use doctrine, which consists of a four factor balancing tests, allows for the use of copyrighted works in circumstances that might otherwise be infringing but generally does not impair the commercial incentive behind copyright from being carried out. In other words, copyright infringement can often cause real damage and the fair-use doctrine doesn't exist because society doesn't care about that damage but because use of a copyrighted work via the fair-use doctrine is when infringement won't cause that real damage.

"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

Clumpy wrote:I'm referring to the fact that laws were created for a reason, because of the damage they create. If you can't itemize why exactly copying information causes real damage, and there isn't an overridingly sound reason to make something like that illegal, it seems not only to be fine but actually in the public interest to protect. Hence fair use, etc.

Copyright infringement is illegal because society has decided to provide a commercial incentive for creative works and copyright infringement impairs that commercial incentive from occurring. The fair-use doctrine, which consists of a four factor balancing tests, allows for the use of copyrighted works in circumstances that might otherwise be infringing but generally does not impair the commercial incentive behind copyright from being carried out. In other words, copyright infringement can often cause real damage and the fair-use doctrine doesn't exist because society doesn't care about that damage but because use of a copyrighted work via the fair-use doctrine is when infringement won't cause that real damage.

I understand the legal explanation. But all of that hinges on "infringement discourages the creation of creative works," doesn't it? Copyright infringement can cause damage or it can benefit the creator depending on the situation. In and of itself it merely creates more of the product in a noncommercial context. Lacking this subtle understanding, or possibly just used to power, the trade groups and federations that fight even fair use can only come up with some metaphysical "author's rights to control their product" argument that doesn't hold up since the authors are the ones they're exploiting.

Clumpy wrote:I understand the legal explanation. But all of that hinges on "infringement discourages the creation of creative works," doesn't it?

Not exactly. While many people, including several legal scholars would agree with your statement "infringement discourages the creation of creative works," it is merely one of several arguments against infringement. Further arguments include but aren't limited to "infringement impairs an author's ability to control his or her works" and "infringement can result in the infringers profiting from the authors creative works." Even if you don't agree with the first argument, there are many other reasons why copyright infringement is outlawed.

Clumpy wrote:Copyright infringement can cause damage or it can benefit the creator depending on the situation. In and of itself it merely creates more of the product in a noncommercial context.

While there are several well-known cases involving non-commercial infringement, the majority of infringement cases involve commercial infringement.

Clumpy wrote:Lacking this subtle understanding, or possibly just used to power, the trade groups and federations that fight even fair use can only come up with some metaphysical "author's rights to control their product" argument that doesn't hold up since the authors are the ones they're exploiting.

The major proponents of expanded copyright protections in the early twentieth century were Authors. Mark Twain spent years in front of congress, lobbying on behalf of foreign and domestic authors. While in recent years, the terms and provisions of copyright protection have grown beyond any reasonable need or purpose, at its core, copyright does protect authors. With the § 203 provisions coming into play starting in 2013, the fact that copyright protects authors will be seen much more heavily in the next few years.

"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

I think I might agree with you were we to tabulate our beliefs. I think you see a great effect from copyright law, and then diminishing returns as it gets stricter until it becomes almost an actual civil liberties issue. Copyright is supposed to be an agreement where consumer/individual and the copyright owner both have obligations. Unfortunately the powerful have found ways to renege on their side of the deal.

Clumpy wrote:I think I might agree with you were we to tabulate our beliefs. I think you see a great effect from copyright law, and then diminishing returns as it gets stricter until it becomes almost an actual civil liberties issue.

I wouldn't refer to it as a civil liberties issue but yeah, things aren't ideal.

Clumpy wrote:Copyright is supposed to be an agreement where consumer/individual and the copyright owner both have obligations. Unfortunately the powerful have found ways to renege on their side of the deal.

I don't see that. I'd say that the balance of rights versus responsibilities are completely unbalanced for copyright holders. Who are "the powerful" and how are they "reneging"?

"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

The rights that you are granted as a consumer of copyrighted work, including noncommercial personal copying and any right of ownership have been taken away by "licensing" and loopholes provided most dramatically in the DMCA, which ostensibly still allows you these rights but forbids you from acting to regain them should copyright holders include technology to remove them.

Clumpy wrote:The rights that you are granted as a consumer of copyrighted work, including noncommercial personal copying and any right of ownership have been taken away by "licensing" and loopholes provided most dramatically in the DMCA, which ostensibly still allows you these rights but forbids you from acting to regain them should copyright holders include technology to remove them.

What do you mean when you say "licensing"? Are you referring to the idea that some publishers are now selling licenses to products like games and books, rather than the games and books directly, so that the products can't be resold under the first sale doctrine? I'm not sure how that would be "reneging," as you called it. It's simply another business method. And if you don't like it, you don't have to buy the product. When enough people decide to do this, that's when the companies will see this business method is not a good one and put a stop with it. That's exactly what happened with the Apple iTunes Store's DRM and that's exactly what should happen.

This is why I keep wondering who you are referring to when you mention the "powerful" who are "reneging." People are powerful. Corporations only have the power people give to them.

"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

Clumpy wrote:The rights that you are granted as a consumer of copyrighted work, including noncommercial personal copying and any right of ownership have been taken away by "licensing" and loopholes provided most dramatically in the DMCA, which ostensibly still allows you these rights but forbids you from acting to regain them should copyright holders include technology to remove them.

Property law is largely based around one thing: the owner of a thing has control over its use by others. For example, access to Disneyland costs money, but use of city parks is usually free. If you deny owners their right of control, you have no moral defense when someone "hacks" the locks on your home and takes things that belong to you.

To obtain access to art, you must acquire a license. There are permanent licenses, temporary licenses, and attached licenses to consider.

Access to museums often requires a paid ticket, by which you have obtained temporary license.

Your license to read and lend a book only lasts as long as the book itself does; you do not have the right to go into a bookstore and obtain another copy of a book that was accidentally burned. This is an attached license. (Your initial purchase may have included the right to make a "backup copy" for your personal use, as long as you don't distribute it, freely or for profit. However, I wouldn't suggest it; the handmade copy would probably cost as much or more in ink and paper than a second store-bought copy. Rare works might be a different story.)

With digital backups and unlicensed distribution (piracy) on the rise, copyright holders are turning to more creative licensing to retain control of their works. The inclusion of "takeback" technology for digital media is a new innovation, and implies a less permanent license by its very inclusion. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy that particular creative work.

Maybe I made my point too strongly, though I feel that when a consumer is granted a legal right, and that right is infringed upon by some organized body, that body has broken the law and should be treated as an infringer, of rights if not copyright. For the same reason that a software company can't force you to agree to forfeit your right of assembly by opening a seal, they shouldn't be able to force you to agree that you won't exercise your consumer right to make personal copies or change the format of legally downloaded material. It's convenient that enforcement of the law ignores consumer rights.

This whole shebang is an unintuitive mess, and cultural understanding on what exactly a person is allowed to do with their own material varies widely as well. The mess that law, especially the DMCA has created, leads to stupid situations, where a consumer is legally granted a right that companies have the legal right to take away merely by including an obstacle, and any software that allows consumers to exercise their rights by removing the lock (read: RealDVD) is subject to actual litigation. The legal dynamics of the case may vary from my understanding, though it's pretty clear who's got whose collected arm bent over their backs in this case.

Clumpy wrote:Maybe I made my point too strongly, though I feel that when a consumer is granted a legal right, and that right is infringed upon by some organized body, that body has broken the law and should be treated as an infringer, of rights if not copyright.

Well, strictly speaking, a consumer isn't really granted a right the way you are describing so I'm not really sure what exactly you are trying to say.

Clumpy wrote:For the same reason that a software company can't force you to agree to forfeit your right of assembly by opening a seal, they shouldn't be able to force you to agree that you won't exercise your consumer right to make personal copies or change the format of legally downloaded material. It's convenient that enforcement of the law ignores consumer rights.

While a software company can't infringe your right to free assembly by way of a EULA, it's not for the reasons you are most likely thinking of. However, shrink-wrap licenses have generally been upheld because people have to right to contract the way they wish (most of the time).

Clumpy wrote:This whole shebang is an unintuitive mess, and cultural understanding on what exactly a person is allowed to do with their own material varies widely as well.

I will agree that the situation is far from ideal. Copyright law is so confusing that I know many lawyers who don't even understand it.

Clumpy wrote:The mess that law, especially the DMCA has created, leads to stupid situations, where a consumer is legally granted a right that companies have the legal right to take away merely by including an obstacle, and any software that allows consumers to exercise their rights by removing the lock (read: RealDVD) is subject to actual litigation. The legal dynamics of the case may vary from my understanding, though it's pretty clear who's got whose collected arm bent over their backs in this case.

Well, it's not that "consumer rights" (which again, isn't a doctrine the way you are describing it) are being infringed, it's that in previous business models, consumers were allowed to do certain actions and in newer business models, consumers are allowed to do different actions. Again, if you don't like this model, don't buy any products that use it. That is certainly your right.

"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

Clumpy wrote:Maybe I made my point too strongly, though I feel that when a consumer is granted a legal right, and that right is infringed upon by some organized body, that body has broken the law and should be treated as an infringer, of rights if not copyright. For the same reason that a software company can't force you to agree to forfeit your right of assembly by opening a seal, they shouldn't be able to force you to agree that you won't exercise your consumer right to make personal copies or change the format of legally downloaded material. It's convenient that enforcement of the law ignores consumer rights.

As long as consumers have the rights they believe they do, your argument holds. But a lot of people think they have more rights than they actually do; many "rights" are social privileges. For example, you have a right to an attorney if arrested, but no individual person, attorney or not, may be forced to participate as your attorney; that would be slavery. Instead, the state pays a willing lawyer, picked from a list of participating attorneys, on your behalf, using taxpayer money.

As far as copyright holder rights and consumer rights, it is the consumer's right to defend their use of such material if sued or arrested, or to sue the copyright holder or a jurisdiction abusing its law enforcement powers, if they think their own rights have been violated. Either party is free to give in to the other at any time until a judge rules on it.

Clumpy wrote:EDIT: BlueKnight, is that an Ozy and Millie avatar?

Not quite, though I'm a fan. It's from Pocket Dragon Adventures. It is a picture of an individual cel of Specs, in Scribbles' colors, and represents a core facet of my online persona. ... Oh, I see what you did there. Clever. My avatar is copyright enfringement, I admit. However, such usage is ubiquitous, and C&Ds on forum avatars are rare; if it went to court, I would expect use of still frames and derivative works to be ruled fair use, due to the general lack of enforcement activity over the last ten years.

I can find exactly one reference to copyright infringing avatars, and that is the Squidi (A Modest Destiny) incident, in which a webcomic creator attempted (valiantly) to have the Penny Arcade forum moderators end the usage. His action was seen as petty, and the consumers "won" that battle.

It would have been polite for the individual user to cease and desist, but he didn't. Many corporately hosted forums require their users to use non-infringing avatars, but it says so in their terms of service. The next step would have been the legal action he promised, but Squidi was taken down by a motley hacker mob before he could actually get the ball rolling.

Real Musgrave, BKN Intl. AG, and other valid copyright holders are free to contact me to pull my derivative work. If they can.

BlueNight wrote:It is a picture of an individual cel of Specs, in Scribbles' colors, and represents a core facet of my online persona. ... Oh, I see what you did there. Clever. My avatar is copyright enfringement, I admit.

Sorry - I'm apparently such an asshat that my idle avatar question was mistaken as some wider commentary. I'm not big on the "but YOU did this!" style of reasoning, so as thoughtful as I found your analysis it really was just a question of where your avatar came from . I hadn't seen O&M for a few years and seemed to recall a similar character. I'll admit I realized I could take that line of argument (really accusation) but it would be childish, and I hope you don't consider me as such.

I agree with essentially what you said - it's ubiquitous and an homage to rather than a replacement of the original material, which is the same reason I feel duty-bound to support Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series and Family Circus parodies.

BlueNight wrote:My avatar is copyright enfringement, I admit. However, such usage is ubiquitous, and C&Ds on forum avatars are rare; if it went to court, I would expect use of still frames and derivative works to be ruled fair use, due to the general lack of enforcement activity over the last ten years.

Actually, while the doctrine of copyright estoppel (i.e. the general lack of enforcement activity) can protect an infringer whose activities were known about by the copyright owner for many years, this isn't the same thing as finding the use to be fair use. Fair use is spelled out by the four-factor balancing test laid out in § 107*. Under this balancing test, the court would most likely find that the use of a still frame as a forum avatar would be fair use, although copyright estoppel would generally be sufficient as a defense against infringement.

* The four-factor test is:(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Clumpy wrote:I agree with essentially what you said - it's ubiquitous and an homage to rather than a replacement of the original material, which is the same reason I feel duty-bound to support Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series and Family Circus parodies.

I can understand recognizing "Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series" and "Family Circus" parodies as non-infringing but why would this recognition impose a duty to support those things?

"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

Clumpy wrote:I agree with essentially what you said - it's ubiquitous and an homage to rather than a replacement of the original material, which is the same reason I feel duty-bound to support Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series and Family Circus parodies.

I can understand recognizing "Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series" and "Family Circus" parodies as non-infringing but why would this recognition impose a duty to support those things?

Support the right to exist of, I mean. I happen to enjoy the former quite a bit though I meant that it doesn't damage the original material but in fact enhances it.